Unbiased scientific progress made by Religion.

[Clint]

FYI. Craig Venter is not religious.

"On BBC News on October 22, 2007, when asked about his religious view he replied that he thought that a true scientist could not believe in supernatural explanations"

"I think from my experience in war and life and science, it all has made me believe that we have one life on this planet," genomics pioneer J. Craig Venter, who was drafted into the Vietnam War, tells the San Francisco Chronicle. "We have one chance to live it and to contribute to the future of society and the future of life. The only 'afterlife' is what other people remember of you."

 

[borrofburi]

FYI. Craig Venter is not religious.

"On BBC News on October 22, 2007, when asked about his religious view he replied that he thought that a true scientist could not believe in supernatural explanations"

"I think from my experience in war and life and science, it all has made me believe that we have one life on this planet," genomics pioneer J. Craig Venter, who was drafted into the Vietnam War, tells the San Francisco Chronicle. "We have one chance to live it and to contribute to the future of society and the future of life. The only 'afterlife' is what other people remember of you."

Huh... I thought he was some sort of deist (and *maybe* a "god guided evolution"ist). I guess I was wrong.

 

[Clint]

...all is good! ;-)

You could of been thinking of Francis Collins, the geneticist (and half-baked lunatic) that believe's in God.

But yeah, as for other conversations that have occurred in this thread. Just in case people are confused -, it is impossible for a dogmatic religion to make scientific progress ...or progress of any kind, because of their very dogmatic nature. Dogma by definition is not open to scrutiny, revision, or change. In essence - that's exactly opposite to science. ...however, it is possible for a religious person to compartmentalise their thought processes and contribute to science, in which many of these examples have already been listed

 

[borrofburi]

...all is good! ;-)

You could of been thinking of Francis Collins, the geneticist (and half-baked lunatic) that believe's in God.

Yes, Collins.

 

[FaithlessThinker]

But can we really say religion has never done anything to advance science? The case of Johannes Kepler still leaves room for doubt about that.

Enlighten me on that. From what I've read about Kepler so far, I only infer that he tried to ascribe religious meanings to the scientific observations he made. The best fact about Kepler that's positive towards an idea that religion could have done anything to advance science is that Kepler had developed an enthusiasm towards Copernican heliocentrism mainly because of his theological beliefs about "Father, Son and Holy Spirit." But I find this so weak because he is simply ascribing parts of the Copernican system to elements of his own theology, without any evidence. On the contrary, it looks like Kepler was attempting to use science to advance his religion.

 

[ShootMyMonkey]

In my primary field of computer science, if you want to count it, one could include Frederick Brooks, known most of all for The Mythical Man-Month. He definitely has a religious leaning and works references to the desires of God and the "Divine Plan" in every one of his lectures. I've had my encounters with him before, and I found some of the theistic references a bit off-putting, but he at least leads down to solid points.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Brooks

But can we really say religion has never done anything to advance science?

There's a difference between saying that religious individuals answered the call to their own curiosity to seek out and investigate, and saying that religion itself has done things to advance the progress of science. I would also not even equate something like religious institutions supporting/bankrolling productive research as being religion itself advancing science. In order to say that, you'd have to somehow show that components endemic to the belief system demand that sort of advancement from its followers and that it was definitive enough in saying that that a majority of its followers could at least see that interpretation, even if they couldn't really follow through on it themselves.

With respect to things like scientific advancements made by religious people, you'll generally find that invocations of God don't actually appear until those individuals reach the points where their intellects fail them. Newton never mentioned God's power in control of anything until he gave up on solving the multi-body problem. Huygens never mentioned God's direct involvement in reality until he went into a field in which was out of his depth. And in all those cases, it's where these people stopped dead in exploring further. It's where their minds went in order to give up. Hardly advancement, if you ask me.

 

[Pennies for Thoughts]

On the contrary, it looks like Kepler was attempting to use science to advance his religion.

Anon1986sing has a well-placed question about Kepler, and the conclusion may be a chicken and egg conundrum or no conundrum at all. Did Kepler use science to advance his religion? Absolutely. But it was religion that set him on the path to his discoveries relating to planetary motion. Prior to this he was just another, if I may be blunt, bible-thumping astrologer. But as with others of his time, Kepler was bothered by the retrograde motion of the planets: the apparent tendency of planets to reverse their direction.

If the motion of the planets relative to their background stars, as any "rational" astrologer of his time "knew," foretold human destiny, what did the observable fact that planets could "move backwards" mean? If the universe is ordered by a god, planets can't have reverse gears.

Kepler had caught onto the fact that the planets' retrograde motion itself had a certain regularity to it which, in the case of our near neighbor Mars, was about every two years. He had to get some data and the Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe was the only man who had it back then. He arranged to visit Brahe, but getting scientific data was no easy chore in those days. It was essentially, and again my apologies for the vernacular, about hanging out and kissing the data owner's butt which religion drove Kepler to do to his great personal displeasure.

Kepler was a tight-assed religionist. Brahe was a landed libertine intellectual with a golden nose to cover the deformity of his own missing nose, lost in a duel. Imagine the pope having to hang out and kiss butt with Anton Lavey, founder of the First Church of Satan. Kepler's faith in his god was the only thing that could make this happen for him. Yes, Kepler used what he learned to push his faith, but his faith is what drove him to learn what he learned.

Now it may well be said that after Kepler learned what he learned he messed it up miserably thanks to religion, but it's still mighty tough to argue that religion and religion alone didn't drive Kepler's wonderful discoveries.

 

[FaithlessThinker]

Kepler had caught onto the fact that the planets' retrograde motion itself had a certain regularity to it which, in the case of our near neighbor Mars, was about every two years. He had to get some data and the Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe was the only man who had it back then. He arranged to visit Brahe, but getting scientific data was no easy chore in those days. It was essentially, and again my apologies for the vernacular, about hanging out and kissing the data owner's butt which religion drove Kepler to do to his great personal displeasure.

Kepler was a tight-assed religionist. Brahe was a landed libertine intellectual with a golden nose to cover the deformity of his own missing nose, lost in a duel. Imagine the pope having to hang out and kiss butt with Anton Lavey, founder of the First Church of Satan. Kepler's faith in his god was the only thing that could make this happen for him. Yes, Kepler used what he learned to push his faith, but his faith is what drove him to learn what he learned.

Now it may well be said that after Kepler learned what he learned he messed it up miserably thanks to religion, but it's still mighty tough to argue that religion and religion alone didn't drive Kepler's wonderful discoveries.

How exactly did religion alone drive Kepler's wonderful discoveries? And by "discoveries" do you mean the three Kepler's laws of planetary motion? As far as I can see, he observed retrograde motion, analyzed Brahe's data and came up with his laws (two first, third one some 10 years later). I fail to see the religious component in all these. I only see that it is his own curiosity that pushed him to make his discoveries, but being the 17th century, he believed in god, and tried to attribute heavenly meanings to his scientific discoveries. Please correct me where I'm wrong and continue to enlighten me.

 

[ShootMyMonkey]

But it was religion that set him on the path to his discoveries relating to planetary motion. Prior to this he was just another, if I may be blunt, bible-thumping astrologer. But as with others of his time, Kepler was bothered by the retrograde motion of the planets: the apparent tendency of planets to reverse their direction.
<snip>
If the motion of the planets relative to their background stars, as any "rational" astrologer of his time "knew," foretold human destiny, what did the observable fact that planets could "move backwards" mean? If the universe is ordered by a god, planets can't have reverse gears.

I fail to see how this shows that religion drove him to his discovery. Even by the way you tell it, it seemed more like he noticed an anomaly and his inability to explain it or its significance spurred him on to try and solve the puzzle. This is pretty much how all scientists end up driven towards research. They identify a problem, and their curiosity -- which can also express in firmer discomfort over the lack of an answer -- inspires them to look into it.

The most you can say about the role of religion here is that he thought something didn't make any sense in the context of his religious beliefs. If you were to say that religion set him on his path, at best, it set him on there because something was wrong with it in his mind. You say (later on in a part that I didn't quote here) that only his faith could have made him do this. What role did his faith in God have to do with it? Or are you suggesting that he wouldn't have found the retrograde motion to be at all anomalous (or perhaps he wouldn't have cared) if he didn't have those beliefs in the first place? That's arguable, though it certainly could not fall under the category of religion promoting scientific progress. The story is more or less akin to Galileo in that regard -- progress happened because long-held beliefs could be seen as wrong upon serious investigation.

 

[Pennies for Thoughts]

I fail to see how this shows that religion drove him to his discovery.

Well, I've done the best I could at explaining the Kepler/science/religion triangle. If it doesn't fly for some, so be it.

But if Kepler's Laws do not qualify as scientific progress made in the service of religion what does? And if nothing does then we are saying that science has never been advanced by religion; which seems to need more support at this point than Kepler who, lest we forget, was undeniably a 17th century devoted man.

 

[MRaverz]

Progress made by religious people does not equal progress made by religion.

 

[borrofburi]

I'll be impressed when someone shows me scientific progress that can only have been made by a religious person.

 

[Clint]

Well, I've done the best I could at explaining the Kepler/science/religion triangle. If it doesn't fly for some, so be it.

It shouldn't fly for anybody.

But if Kepler's Laws do not qualify as scientific progress made in the service of religion what does? And if nothing does then we are saying that science has never been advanced by religion; which seems to need more support at this point than Kepler who, lest we forget, was undeniably a 17th century devoted man.

Nope, it's been explained to you previously why it doesn't qualify as scientific progress made by religion. You can't turn around and then just shift the burden of proof over to us, just because you failed to demonstrate how religion has furthered science.

I previously said before. I believe it is impossible for a dogmatic religion to make scientific progress, because of their very dogmatic nature. Dogma by definition is not open to scrutiny, revision, or change. In essence - that's exactly opposite to science. ...however, it is possible for a religious person to compartmentalise their thought processes and contribute to science, in which many of these examples have already been listed

 

[Pennies for Thoughts]

you failed to demonstrate how religion has furthered science.

The case of Kepler clearly demonstrates an instance of religion furthering science. Doubters are splitting hairs over what "furthering science" means.

Religion drove Kepler to Tycho Brahe and eventually his famous laws, which he then used to further his religion. Deniers need to explain why the time Kepler spent developing his laws of planetary motion doesn't count toward his service to his god. Yes the burden of proof is on Kepler deniers (who are not permitted to escape through the trap door of a slippery "furthering science" definition.)

 

[Clint]

No sir, you have the burden of proof. There is a claim: "religion advanced scientific progress", which I reject. You don't start with that as a premise, and then burden the disbeliever to disprove. That's flawed logic, and it's shifting the burden of proof.

Back to the topic. I'm just going to re-quote points people have already made:

The best fact about Kepler that's positive towards an idea that religion could have done anything to advance science is that Kepler had developed an enthusiasm towards Copernican heliocentrism mainly because of his theological beliefs about "Father, Son and Holy Spirit." But I find this so weak because he is simply ascribing parts of the Copernican system to elements of his own theology, without any evidence. On the contrary, it looks like Kepler was attempting to use science to advance his religion.

There's a difference between saying that religious individuals answered the call to their own curiosity to seek out and investigate, and saying that religion itself has done things to advance the progress of science. I would also not even equate something like religious institutions supporting/bankrolling productive research as being religion itself advancing science. In order to say that, you'd have to somehow show that components endemic to the belief system demand that sort of advancement from its followers

I fail to see how this shows that religion drove him to his discovery. Even by the way you tell it, it seemed more like he noticed an anomaly and his inability to explain it or its significance spurred him on to try and solve the puzzle. This is pretty much how all scientists end up driven towards research. They identify a problem, and their curiosity -- which can also express in firmer discomfort over the lack of an answer -- inspires them to look into it.

<i></i>
...The best response you have to these are:

Did Kepler use science to advance his religion? Absolutely. But it was religion that set him on the path to his discoveries relating to planetary motion.

<i></i>which I don't find credible at all. By this logic, I could also say his first grade teacher was absolutely responsible for scientific advancements, for showing the young Kepler a picture of the moon, that then inspired him and drove him forward on his quest. ...No one actually gives his first grade teacher credence for Keplers discoveries though.

and

Kepler's faith in his god was the only thing that could make this happen for him.

<i></i>This is just another example of religion taking away people's ability to take pride in their accomplishments and responsibility for their actions.

Kepler's curiosity and enthusiasm for investigation and desire to shed some ignorance, is what drove him to make the discoveries he did. Just as ShootMyMonkey phrased it above. ...Whether it was to advance his religion or not.

The point is, In order to successfully demonstrate that religion is absolutely responsible for scientific advancement of Kepler's discoveries. You first have to demonstrate that Kepler could never of made those particular discoveries on his own accord, without religion. You haven't done this, and we both know you probably couldn't. Which is why I reject that claim.

 

[Proteus]

Please don't forget the amazing insites and breakthroughs Kent Hovind contributed to the scientific field of cryptozoology, surely a remarkable Christian addition to the scientific knowledge base.

LOL! Thanks for bring up my day I could use that laugh.

 

[Pennies for Thoughts]

The point is, In order to successfully demonstrate that religion is absolutely responsible for scientific advancement of Kepler's discoveries. You first have to demonstrate that Kepler could never of made those particular discoveries on his own accord, without religion. You haven't done this, and we both know you probably couldn't.

Of course this can't be proven, and there is no point to setting an impossible, arbitrary standard like this, or to drag Kepler's first grade teacher into it other than to obfuscate Kepler's historically known religious motives.

The hypothesis that religion has never done anything to advance science is as wrong as the fact that it hasn't done much is right. The Kepler case establishes this. If there's a challenge that his first grade teacher or a pure love of science motivated him more than his religion, those raising it are welcome to make their case. But it is their job to back it up, not someone else's job to speculate on their speculation. So far the Kepler deniers have done nothing to remove Kepler's religion as the primary motive for his research.

Not that doing so would do much good because there are other examples of religion advancing science, including one of the oldest astronomy institutions in the world: the Vatican Observatory, which continues to provide meaningful research (albeit for all the wrong religious reasons). http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/vatican_observe_000716.html

 

[biology4life]

But not one of them has achieved their 'progress' by inserting God into the equation.

BTW Yes I capitalised God it's a proper noun just like Harry Potter.

 

[FaithlessThinker]

Religion drove Kepler to Tycho Brahe and eventually his famous laws,

Please substantiate this with sources.

Yes I capitalised God it's a proper noun just like Harry Potter.

I beg to differ. The word "god" is a common noun, in much the same was as the word "person" is. The word "god" refers to a certain kind of supernatural being supposed to be in existence by a person or a group of people. This kind of supernatural being is usually attributed with extraordinary powers and abilities to control certain elements of the universe or the universe itself. Since people all over the world believes in all kinds of gods, "god" cannot be a proper noun. On the other hand, Poseidon is a proper noun for one of the Greek gods, Zeus is another. And Harry Potter is a proper noun as it is the name given to a character in the fictional world of J. K. Rowling.

In a nutshell: A proper noun serve as an identification for a particular entity in the class of a common noun. Your name identifies you in the class of human beings. "Harry Potter" identifies the main character among the wizards in Rowling's fantasy world. "Poseidon" identifies that particular Greek god in the class of all gods. This is the reason why the word "god" shouldn't be capitalized. It's only a common noun.

Edit: I realize that the confusion arises because the name given to the christian god in English happens to be "God," unfortunately. But we ought to remember that in Hebrew, the christian god is called "Yahweh" (am I right?) and in Arabic speaking communities, the christian god is called "Allah."

 

[biology4life]

I beg to differ.

OK Not wanting to derail things totally OT I could have said 'without...a god or gods...' but it seemed based on the scientist mentioned in the thread that it would have been a particular god known as God who they would have inserted if inserting a god had been useful.

Ruddy hull that's a shitely constructed sentence if ever I've cobbled one together.